Posted on 07/25/2021 9:59:49 AM PDT by rickmichaels
A judge has ruled that a $3million luxury home in Quebec, Canada, built less than ten years ago must be demolished and the local city will need to pay for it.
The ruling is the latest in a roughly eight-year legal saga that began when the home was built too close to the street, violating local zoning laws in the city of Gatineau.
The judge's decision overrules an exemption the city gave the homeowner in a bid to keep the mansion as-is.
In his ruling this week, Quebec Superior Court Judge Michel Deniel said owner Patrick Molla had every reason to believe his home met building code requirements when the city granted him permits to build in May 2013, the Canadian Press reported.
That September, however, the city discovered that the planning official who approved the permits made an error when they allowed construction to go forward on the home, which is about 23 feet from the street. Homes must be built at least 51 feet away from the street, according to local bylaws.
Instead of telling Molla to stop construction on the home, however, the city allowed it to go forward, telling him that the problem would be taken care of. In February, 2014, Molla's family moved into the home, and in July, 2014 it granted him a 'minor exemption' to keep it in compliance.
Deniel's ruling override's Gatineau's exemption, and says there was likely little choice except for it to be torn down.
He sided with neighbors who complained the property was out of character with the rest of the neighborhood and argued that the city's exemption was an illegal abuse of power.
'Had he known the risk of eventual demolition, he would not have continued issued Moll construction on Sept. 25, 2013,' Deniel said in his ruling.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
El ‘Robed Ones’ — OUT OF CONTROL, worldwide
Canada-who cares?
Three million buys a lot of ammo.
Quebec , the place with Language Police ,LOL
All the while California allows homes to be built right into the forested areas of the state, forcing firefighters to deal with saving lives first rather than containment during the wildfires.
Okay, so the house is too close to the street by 28 feet. But the owner got an exemption. The solution is simple: move the street back 28 feet.
I really should open up my own consulting business.
local city will need to pay for it.
From the looks of the house and the story involved it appears there were greased palms all around.
I wouldn’t live anywhere I can see my neighbors.
After the Great Reset, law will be whatever they want it to be. “Back to the cotton fields there Mandingo.” “ Shut up and work for your masters”.
He should demolish it for looking like a prison. Yuck. That’s some ugly crap.
Translated into English: The neighbors were jealous of his $3 million mansion.
-PJ
Sue the city for cost/relocation/and emotional distress from the butthurt neighbors.
You have every right to property that the government is willing to tolerate.
Payback has always been a Hillary.
The judge and the neighbors should find out.
Le Quebecois. You know. Wine drinkers. Pea soup eaters. French Canadians!
Tabernac! Les Bastards!
Three million would buy a really nice armored bulldozer, too, much better than that homemade job in Greeley, CO some years back.
“the city’s exemption was an illegal abuse of power.”
If that ain’t making Orwell blush I don’t know what will. And you just know some a hole neighbor would have complained if it was too close to the water moving it back the 28 feet they demanded.
Note to self. NEVER live in a neighborhood with HOAs. Without exception they are all run by librarian type tyrants who LOVE the power.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.